Oh no shade intended on you or your post fren, was just adding context, comparison references, and my own personal interpretation of the event.
I suspect there is a behind-the-scenes tug of war with this DAs that we'll never be completely privy to. It could be interpreted as either a black-hat action to punt the case or as a patterned white-hat action to expose the fact that black-hats bribe DAs to punt cases.
I actually interpret it as the latter cuz the Gascón reference is so readily at hand.
===
I think if black hats were in control, they would actually use their non-Soros-funded DA assets first, and let the Soros-funded DAs harmlessly sit for a decade or so before they were unleashed. Get people used to the idea of the "brand" of a Soros-funded DA being acceptable--perhaps even "good"--before unleashing the true intent on the public.
I'm not advocating for the guy, I'm just pointing out he's doing our work for us.
Oh no shade intended on you or your post fren, was just adding context, comparison references, and my own personal interpretation of the event.
I suspect there is a behind-the-scenes tug of war with this DAs that we'll never be completely privy to. It could be interpreted as either a black-hat action to punt the case or as a patterned white-hat action to expose the fact that black-hats bribe DAs to punt cases.
I actually interpret it as the latter cuz the Gascón reference is so readily at hand.
===
I think if black hats were in control, they would actually use their non-Soros-funded DA assets first, and let the Soros-funded DAs harmlessly sit for a decade or so before they were unleashed. Get people used to the idea of the "brand" of a Soros-funded DA being acceptable--perhaps even "good"--before unleashing the true intent on the public.